Anyone else feel that Absurdism is quickly getting out of hand? I've tried twice to ask Kalki about what criteria is being used for selection for the page (see User_talk:Kalki#Absurdism), but I'm still no closer to an answer (it appears to me that whatever criteria are being used they are the result of a logical fallacy). I just worry that this page will become so bloated as to become something beyond the bounds of the original theme. And it seems to me that it is becoming a personal essay of sorts about the topic, choosing quotes for inclusion based on Kalki's personal view of the world rather than an objective selection that is tied to the topic in a more obvious way. I also worry that this will set a precedent for anyone else who wants to cherry pick quotes to fit a theme of their choosing that do not really fit. Anyone care to comment on Kalki's talk page in the conversation I started? ~ UDScott 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted a brief comment that I was already drafting when you posted this question. I am not sure this editorial question is an Administrators' issue a this point, so the Village Pump may be a better venue for requesting comment. ~ Ningauble 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion raised by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contributions) about inappropriate image use by Kalki. I removed the images as part of the discussion at Village Pump.

Disruption: Kalki (talk · contributions) has refused to wait for discussion at Village Pump, instead choosing to disruptively violate consensus and revert the inappropriate images back to the pages. Here are the six diffs: diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff. Note: I removed the images myself a 2nd time, but I won't do so again, pending discussion at Village Pump, and I made a statement to that impact there: my comment.

At this point in time, Kalki's participation is no longer constructive. Indeed, it is only disruptive and incivil in nature. Kalki has shown he refuses to participate constructively without disruption, and in a civil manner.

Of course if people are so cowardly and obtuse as to accept this load of crap as anything other than a load of malevolent crap, someone might actually block me temporarily — but once again, Cirt actually saw NO NEED of ANY form of CONSENSUS to develop before REMOVING images that had been on WELL USED PAGES for MONTHS or YEARS, at the rather obtuse objections of ONE person who has NOT EDITED IN YEARS who provided him an opportunity to have a ruse to begin attacking my considerable work here. I RESTORED these pages to their LONG EXISTING CONDITION, and it is Cirt who is being quite SMUGLY disruptive. There are no words for the censure this contemptible person deserves, and so I will simply say I FORGIVE him or her his or her STUPIDITY — and even his or her will to do EVIL and SLANDER others — but I cannot PARDON him or her from BEING someone I consider truly DESPICABLE. ONLY they themselves, can do that, through a bit of self-examination which seems something the most VILE slanderers are MOST fearful of actually doing, or having any one else do. I stand by my actions and my sentiments as truly moral and ethical, and my passions as well. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

This project has over 20,000 pages now. I would think that there's ample opportunity for the two of you to contribute without running into each other. If you can't figure out how to get along, I really wish you would just try to avoid interacting. That said, Kalki, you need to tone down your rhetoric. You can't go around calling people authoritarian or accuse them of having a will to do evil over content disputes. That goes beyond the constraints of a civil community. You are too easily provoked into excessive responses like the one above. Don't be, and others won't provoke you. BD2412T 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@BD2412: A third-party user raised an issue with Kalki's inappropriate image use at Village Pump. I commented there. I then removed the inappropriate images. Kalki reverted, and responded with incivil rhetoric. Let's see the forest for the trees here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding complaint #1, my observation as events unfolded is that it was Cirt who began acting without waiting for discussion to reach consensus, by removing images minutes after the discussion was initiated. The complaint itself is internally inconsistent in that failing to wait for discussion to reach consensus and violating the consensus reached in discussion are mutually exclusive characterizations of the events. It is my opinion that the discussion had not, and has not yet, reached a consensus; and that Cirt's removal of images might fairly be characterized as contentious editing.

Nothing in this remark is intended to excuse or justify any subsequent edit warring by either party. ~ Ningauble 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ningauble: Two (2) users commenting at Village Pump found the image use by Kalki inappropriate. I removed the images. No other party commented at Village Pump. Your assessment is inaccurate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, less than 30 minutes had elapsed from when the issue was raised (21:01–21:29, UTC), and only three people had expressed opinions on the question in that interval. In my opinion, administrators should display a greater appreciation of what does and does not constitute an established consensus. Of course, if you were unaware that the matter might still be considered open for discussion then "contentious editing" might not be the most apt description. ~ Ningauble 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. – It is unsurprising that there has been little comment yet about the image policy, or lack thereof, given the amount of distraction that predictably arises from poking Kalki.) ~ Ningauble 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ninguable, it was Kalki who reverted against existing consensus at that time, and Kalki who used inappropriate rhetoric. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to item #1, which has nothing to do with Kalki's rhetoric but, rather, has to do with failing to wait for discussion to establish a consensus. You cannot have it both ways: if Kalki failed to wait for discussion as you say, then you also failed by acting first. It takes more than two comments to establish consensus to change something that has had longstanding tacit acceptance. ~ Ningauble 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, Ningauble, that consensus is against Kalki, and still is. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding complaint #2, I agree with BD2412's remarks. I have said on several occasions that this sort of histrionics is counterproductive and disruptive. ~ Ningauble 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ningauble: I agree. And yet Kalki continues the inappropriate behavior. With zero repercussions for Kalki. What we are to learn from this is that this sort of histrionics is counterproductive and disruptive, and yet at the same time acceptable and tolerated. That seems quite odd. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding complaint #3, I do not believe it is quite accurate to characterize the quoted remarks as "warnings". Speaking of my own words, it was not my intention to express or imply a threat of consequences. ~ Ningauble 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there zero repercussions for this behavior by Kalki? Can others see from this model that there are no problems with also behaving like this? Would there be nothing wrong if I also started to use this sort of rhetoric? -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that Kalki's rhetoric has gone over the top and has devolved into a string of personal attacks. These are content disputes, not a basis for making these kinds of attacks. I also think that where these comments are made in edit summaries, they represent an inappropriate use of that function, since they go far beyond describing the actual changes made to the pages in question. At this point, I would endorse blocking Kalki for a cooling off period of a day or two. BD2412T 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I truly wish things had gone otherwise — but I believe the time HAS come for repercussions for the OBVIOUSLY malicious TROLLING and VANDALISM of Cirt, which has gone on quite long enough with impunity. I am going to OFFICIALLY request that he or she be DESYSOPED — I have NEVER done such a thing before, and I am no longer familiar with many of the procedures involved, but I believe that he or she is continually little more than a disruptive and malevolent presence here — and truly hope that one day this person will be more responsible and less hostile to the GOOD which dwells in ALL people — even those who are extremely misguided and deluded. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, such a threat by Kalki appears to be retaliation in nature, especially made directly after a third-party admin (BD2412) has suggested that a block is in order for Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to acknowledge that a few people have objected to the passion of my rhetoric in the past few days and of the past few years at times — but I believe I have NEVER done ANYTHING which is immoral or actually violates the mandates of this or any other wikimedia project, though it sometimes oppresses the expectations or sensibilities of some. I implore people to further examine the circumstances in which I have spoken — and to ALWAYS be PREPARED to LEARN more from others, rather than to suppress and remove information, or seek to remove their right to effectively SPEAK in public forums of some significance. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, Cirt my response was something I composed IMMEDIATELY after your first comments — but there was an edit conflict, as there was in my last post because of your last comments. I am NOT calling upon you to be blocked or prevented from editing — but I truly believe a DESYSOPING of you is ENTIRELY appropriate, whether others can reach consensus to block me or not, and is NOT "retaliation" but simply weariness of having to put up with your regularly use of Admin privileges and prestige to more effectively intimidate and slander others. I have stated in the past that of ALL the admins I personally have encountered on ALL the wikimedia projects you are the person LEAST worthy of having such tools or prestige available to them. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweak

Proposing to desysop Cirt is rather pointless, at best. Looking over Cirt's contribution history, there is a substantial body of good edits (particularly the rescue of Jean-Luc Picard, and his work on My Life in Orange and the Campaign for "santorum" neologism page) and productive, appropriate use of the admin tools. On the other hand, I note that Cirt has not blocked you, but has instead sought consensus of the community on this matter, which is an entirely responsible way to go about addressing the issues he raises. BD2412T 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412, I appreciate that, very much. Indeed, I hope another third-party admin will take action here with regards to Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I continuously am responding to previous remarks now— "Accusing others of trolling or malevolance is pretty clearly a personal attack" — I assert that saying such accusations are an "unacceptable attack" IF SINCERE is rather absurd, for that would mean that the implications of your statement are clearly an unacceptable "personal attack" — but I reject such specious logic and see no need to forgive you for sincerity, and hope you can see there is no need for me to beg anyone for expressing mine. I have said before that I am an Absurdist — which makes it very easy for me to FORGIVE errors and ACCEPT fair will in others — but what I sometimes do with vehement passion is attack forms of foul and life diminishing error. I truly believe that I am attacking hypocrisy and foul absurdities with acknowledgement and some assertions of fair and beautiful absurdities which most people are too shallow or narrow minded to regularly perceive. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Kalki, that's not enough. The inappropriate use of the edit summary space for attacks must stop. The incivility and baseless accusations of "trolling", "vandalisms", calling another user a "troll" and a "vandal", must stop. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I had been inclined to post this (and once again had an edit conflict)— but the above aggression makes me pause — but I will post it all the same with the remark that "use of the edit summary space for attacks must stop" quite rightly applies to calling quotes of a major UN functionary and links to UN sites SPAM. THUS, I will withdraw my request for desysoping of Cirt at this time. I will concede it was made in ANGER and frustration, but certainly was NOT in mere "retaliation" for past actions. I believe that if one looks at things from the broadest perspectives most people would agree with me, but don't wish to push anyone to such limits at this time. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Unfortunately this still doesn't address the issue of Kalki's inappropriate rhetoric. There is nothing to say that he won't do this again in the near future. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE, I am maintaining that there is a need for HONESTY rather than hypocrisy — and I am quite aware that many people are inclined to pander to people's desire for appearance of security and calm and peace rather than have core issues honestly addressed which might resolve MANY of the actual causes of conflict and hostility in genuinely fair ways. I will concede that I am a person very prone to passionate and sincere rhetoric rather than disimulating hypocrisy and feigned geniality, and I am quite aware many people are often prone to find that offensive, frightening and even dangerous, especially those who regularly feel severely threatened by those most willing to be honest. I will try to diminish the severity of some of my rhetoric, but I certainly will NOT make any promises to suppress my inclination to honest and sincere assertions forever. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks + PS : I truly will try to refrain from commenting very passionately on these issues for at least few days, but again, I make no promises that I will do so entirely. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Kalki has neglected to redact or cross out with <s></s> any of his inappropriate comments and inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, the he has continually added to it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely have NO inclinations to cross out sincere comments I continue to believe to be probably true and certainly justified and valid from my perspectives. I accept that in some ways I might be wrong or excessive, and I accept that you might not be able to perceive or appreciate many forms of the reason, logic or expressions I have used, but I have NOT attempted to FORBID you in engaging in YOUR forms of rhetoric and expression — nor even to constrain you from them at all, save where that consists of automatically deleting anything you do not agree with, wish to have considered or KNOWN by anyone, or BLOCKING someone who dares to engage in a dispute with you — as you HAVE already DONE with ME in the past. SINCERE BLESSINGS TO YOU with HONEST AFFIRMATION of your worth as a UNIQUE human being who I am sincerely attempting to better understand and appreciate. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweak

I'd like to hear comments from admins and not Kalki on whether Kalki's rhetoric and refusal to redact inappropriate attacks constitutes need for repercussions for Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I too would like to hear comments from others and not Cirt on me and Cirt and whether my rhetoric is inappropriate, and Cirt's continued rhetoric and apparent will to find someone as an ally in suppressing, erasing, or deprecating information, or threatening people with punishments if they do not RETRACT or disavow their HONEST opinions is appropriate behavior for a fair and just human being. Blessings to all with Truth and Grace for all who are wise — and even absurd fools like me. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I actually WILL state I possibly HAVE made some errors in some of my previous statements, and I believe there CERTAINLY must be deficiencies of MANY types in nearly ALL of them. I know that such is characteristic of nearly ANY statement a human being CAN make, thus I will not burden anyone with too many details, but this is something I am willing to concede — but I do NOT consider an insistence or expectation or demand of others to retract any particular statements they had sincerely expressed is appropriate behavior for ANYONE. Blessings to All. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Sigh, I see that Kalki will continue to respond here until he has The Last Word, so be it. Hopefully there will be repercussions for Kalki so Kalki will learn not to repeat such inappropriate behavior, rhetoric, and attacks in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not acceptable behavior in the middle of an ongoing Village Pump discussion where consensus is against Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You continue to cite a discussion that has JUST BEGUN, as if a consensus of involved participants in this project had been developed, and it has NOT. Also, the rules you are attempting to cite as something I have violated are Wikipedia rules, NOT Wikiquote rules. Similar policies and guidelines here might be appropriate to develop for this WIki — but have never actually been established because there are so few people involved here regularly that development of formal procedures has never been a top priority for MOST of US — and I for one have always promoted a respect for PRESERVING informalities of procedures, so much as possible, and promoting far more free and informal relations. Even emulation of those policies developed at Wikipedia in relation to its VAST community are such as I do not believe I have disrespected so grievously as Cirt would like to portray me as having done. They state: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

I approached four people — ONE, whom I had strong reason to believe agreed with me on the issue, and 3 others whose specific views are at this point STILL not known to me or anyone else, and who I approached because they were very active in recent weeks and two of them had been involved in recent community discussions, and I believed they might have worthy opinions on this one.

Though I have made no actual searches for evidence of this, I confess that I am genuinely suspicious that general complaints and cross-wiki slanders which I believe Cirt is strongly inclined to make of me might possibly be involved in the sudden surge of interest and involvement against me on this matter here, even if he or she did not actually canvas anyone for this particular issue, but whether that is the case or not, I am not making accusations that he or she DID such a thing — only that I remain very suspicious of MANY of his or her motives, and continue to maintain that he or she has engaged in what I consider extensive and vicious slander campaigns against me in a cross-wiki manner for years.

I repeat that I bear Cirt no particular animosity, and do not know very much about him or her — but I do strongly disagree with MANY of this person's assertions and claims and have made clear that people should have no qualms here against stating their genuine opinions on matters, and NOT feel obligated or be coerced to agree with those that I or anyone else might be prone to agree with or support.

Though I have long refrained from explicating MANY of my own views over my 8 years of work here, to allow greater awareness and appreciation of my particular forms of perspectives to develop in anyone interested in understanding my views, I have recently begun to openly declare myself an Absurdist — something I could arguably be said to have been since my very early childhood. I have GREAT respect for MOST human perspectives, but embrace ABSOLUTE subservience to NONE — and I do NOT promote any political or religious ideologies which WOULD promote any form of absolute subservience of anyone to anyone else. Although I can usually accept MANY of other people's beliefs or strategies as perfectly valid and acceptable for them, I usually discern great problems and innateEVIL in seeking to make any such ways MANDATORY for others. In the spirit of forgiveness and tolerance and promotion of diversity and Justice, Unity, Liberty, and Love of Truth and Grace, I wish everyone greater blessings in their lives, through the growth of Wisdom among us all. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Two points regarding this complaint:

Wikipedia's WP:CANVASS is not policy here at Wikiquote. I think it is unnecessary because this community is several orders of magnitude smaller. Broadening general participation at our Village Pump is a Good Thing™ because it usually has too few voices to assess or formulate broad community consensus.

As I remarked yesterday in an earlier thread on this page, it is completely inconsistent to say that discussion is ongoing and that consensus has been reached at the same time. Please be patient.

So it would be alright for me to go ahead and also post to four (4) users asking them to come to that discussion at Village Pump?

I did not say consensus "reached", but did mention that Kalki chose to take action, canvassing, after he saw existing consensus at the time was 3:1 against him. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with posting on a small number of user talk pages to inform those editors of an ongoing discussion, unless the editors themselves object to it. I would object if such posting was done to a large number of pages (let's say a dozen or more) without a reasonable basis for believing that the editors contacted had a reason to be interested in the discussion. WP:CANVASS allows this also. I agree with Ningauble that bringing more voices to our discussions is a good thing. As for the consensus issue, I think Ningauble's point is that there is no such thing as "existing consensus" until consensus has been "reached". BD2412T 19:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I guess in the future I will also feel free to post to multiple user talkpages in the midst of an ongoing discussion as Kalki has done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Help please, what can be done about ongoing inappropriate rhetoric by Kalki ?[edit]

After stating on this very board above that he would change, Kalki has again used inappropriate rhetoric and attacks, diff.

It seems to me that Kalki is referring to the Nazis as having been authoritarian autocrats, and is saying that it is unfortunate that the Nazis brought this negative connotation to the previously benign swastika. However, Kalki also seems to be suggesting that our imposition of policies designed to forward the presentation of quotes on this project is similarly authoritarian. If there is no objection (other than Kalki's own inevitable objection) within the next few hours, I'm going to block Kalki for 48 hours so that he can reflect on the difference between authoritarianism in Nazi Germany and the establishment of policies on one of the millions of websites available for the posting of these sorts of collections of images and ideas, and the civility incumbent in avoiding such comparisons. Cheers! BD2412T 18:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE I must assert my "inevitable objection" and HOPE that OTHERS will as well. IF my rhetoric is in ANY ways disturbing to ANYONE, if it is in anyway FALSE, or considered FLAWED — such deficiencies should be POINTED out in REASONABLE arguments and debates — and NOT my own or ANYONE else's RIGHT to engage in rhetoric SUPPRESSED, deprecated and taken away for ANY amount of time by COERCION. I assert that TRUE and genuine CIVILITY promotes FREEDOM of SPEECH and NOT suppression of speech — and if ANY criticisms of evident BEHAVIOR, or ATTITUDES is to be taken as a "PERSONAL ATTACK" then what is left to be "Free" about but MUTE DOCILE CONFORMITY? Please note the taking away of the right to speak is FAR more a personal attack on people, than harshly criticizing their actions and attitudes are — no matter WHAT rhetoric or comparisons might be used. It may be a pain to others for me to quote Thomas Paine, but I believe it is my proper RIGHT to do so: "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~ ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Kalki for 48 hours for his continued uncivil references to other editors. I hope this time will allow Kalki to reflect on the value of addressing the issues at hand without commenting on the personalities involved. BD2412T 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I endorse BD2412's action. I hope all of us both Kalki and the rest of the community makes these hours a good occasion of retreat and reflect on the value of constructive dialogue. There should be difference between healthy criticism and hostile personal attack. --Aphaia 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you guys are having so many problems out of Kalki why don't you just put a block on the account and IP adress?-David L Green 18:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely what was done. The problem seems to be that I am what some might want to label a "pathological" Truth-teller — and when I speak I nearly always aim to reveal what I feel can be useful and instructive to others, even if it is NOT always easily understood or welcomed by those more accustomed to abject obedience and fearful timidity. I truly am devoted to this project still, in many earnest ways, but I have ALL my life been FAR more devoted to Justice, such Unity as can ONLY be arrived at by COMMON UNDERSTANDINGS of Truth, Liberty, and Love of Truth by which understandings can develop. I hope that those principles have not become things so alien and strange here that they will actually consider further blocking of someone who, I believe, has still put FAR More WORK into this project than anyone else here, and has always sought to WORK and HELP others do as they will — NOT seek to force them to do as I would wish save through the influence of the forces of Truth, Good Humor, and Reason. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I'm actually a bit offended that you would say that you have "put FAR More WORK into this project than anyone else here". It just so happens that I've made about 4,000 more article space edits than you (although I grant that you have made more edits in other spaces), and in the course of so doing I have imported the entire corpus of several public domain dictionaries of quotations, and have helped to craft and implement a number of important policies. Your work here is appreciated, but none of us is indispensable. BD2412T 21:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually am sorry that I offended you, and did not mean to belittle any of the other MAJOR contributors here at all, and I acknowledge you as one of them — many also are no longer around much anymore, but there are MANY who I know are MUCH under-appreciated. I had not checked up on counts just lately, having had much of my capacities for involvement diminished in recent years. I will perhaps attempt to provide far more thorough accounting of what has gone on in the past with myself and others some time this year — and by the end of the year I expect I will have dropped MANY masks, both here and elsewhere, so others can more thoroughly assess my contributions in MANY areas to many projects, and more properly perceive my actual motives and aims, which I believe have been much maligned and distorted by at least a few people — and I believe many will be quite surprised at the full extent of my efforts to do volunteer work in ANONYMOUS and pseudonymous manners, and though I expect my revelations will allow me to be exonnerated from a few foul suspicions and accusations, there will ALWAYS be things I hold back from claiming much credit for. I also believe many will be suprised to the failures errors and tragedies I will confess to being sorrowed at, even when I cannot regret acting as I truly believed to be for the best. I am almost always ready to acknowledge my perceptions may be deficient or even flawed in significant ways, as this is a circumstance for any human being, but I also would assert they are quite often not quite so deficient nor so much in error in some ways as some people might be inclined to believe or assume. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I had to rush off briefly after I typed in the above, and am just now back — I would also like to note that I was being a bit reactive to the implications made that I was someone who is merely a "troublemaker" — and in my defense I would like to assert I have done FAR more than most of my most vociferous and constant critics and accusers — but I believe MOST of us are usually are doing what we sincerely believe to be beneficial to those things which matters most — though we obviously have varied ideas on what those are. Blessings. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

He continues to harrass me with his demands for an apology, even though he and this IP user (which is most likely a sockpuppet): 99.252.141.19, have caused nothing but edit wars, and he even personally attacked another user in this edit summary. Every time I remove his messages from my talk page, he keeps undoing my edit with a rude edit summary. I request that something be done about it. WikiLubber 02:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for raising it up. As for "99.252.141.19", it rather looks to me just an accidental signing off, not a deliberate sockpupetting, but I could be wrong. On this issue I agree with Ningauble in his word to Ktommy "If he (=WikiLubber) doesn't want to talk to you then the best course I can recommend is to leave him alone." It would be wise for him to leave you alone. On the other hand, I'd ask you, WikiLubber, to consider just leaving his message on your talk without answering. Leaving his messages on your talk doesn't necessarily mean you've accepted his argument. Cleaning up your talk page is of course in your capacity, though.

As for the edit summary, such incivility is not acceptable. I sympathize with you on this incivility even if it was not intended to yourself; it is annoying to have such a disruptive comment on talk history. I'm about to hide the edit summary in question; other admins are welcome to review it and if they think my action overreacts, they should retain the right to revert it. Cheers, --Aphaia 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am about to leave for perhaps a few hours, but in the next day or so, would like to do some work on sourcing and developing the once existing Traudl Junge page which was deleted during what I consider one of the spates of overzealous cleanup in the past. If an admin would undelete that and its talk page in the next few days, I will attempt to do sourcing and expansion of the article. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

After looking into the subject for a bit, I agree that this should be restored and supplied with sourced quotes. The book, Until the Final Hour contains a number of quotable pieces. I will restore the page on Tuesday. BD2412T 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to revert vandalism by Heecfyahoo.ca (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) but he was vandalising pages faster than I could revert. On Wikibooks, I have rollback power, enabling me to fix vandalism much faster. Is there such a power on Wikiquote, and if so can I apply for it please.--Collingwood 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Rollbacker" has not been set up as a distinct user right on this project. Perhaps it would be a good idea, or perhaps we just need to recruit more active Administrators. Mass rollbacks would be unnecessary if we blocked the perpetrators more promptly. ~ Ningauble 16:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no signs that a John Glenn page ever existed here, but believed one once did. If there was one that can be restored, please do so, and I will add some sourced material, and if there is not please inform me here, and I will attempt to create one within a few hours. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that there has ever been one here. Cheers! BD2412T 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually have found that surprising, but now have started one. Thanks. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion logs are visible to all users unless they have been "oversighted" by a Steward, in which case one may be confident that there was no useable content and administrators do not have the ability to see or restore them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion has come up by a very impressive new user here, and I am requesting that Erma Bombeck be restored, which was deleted on 28 February 2010. I am only briefly checking in right now, but will work on sourcing quotes and adding to this page within the next few days. Thanks for the attention. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC) + tweak

2.24.119.149 is continuallyremovingwikilinks to well established Wikipedia articles, despite multiple warnings to stop on their talk page. Instead, their response is to call the editor attempting to engage them in conversation a "nob". Will an admin please issue a block? Thanks, Tiptoetytalk 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As you have probably seen, there is a crosswiki vandal bot operating, and we have been capturing at source where seen. I have a simple AbuseFilter that can be put in place to identify accounts that are possible, and I would like to ask your permission to add it, or someone to be able to add it if that is your preference. Thanks. sDrewth 16:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

YDone We are finding that they are popping up through the English language wikis, and post spam to user pages. It just records, and with the nonsense usernames, you can usually get a good indication that you can block. sDrewth 11:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Several requests at Wikiquote:Bots have been languishing for a long time without resolution. One applicant is considering taking his request to Meta due to inactivity here,[1] but the bot policy at Meta does not provide for this. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving much attention to this page, but it doesn't appear that there has been much in the way of community discussion to reach consensus on any of the pending proposals. BD2412T 23:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was also waiting for any discussion on the requests. I would also like to say that when I was asked to become a bureaucrat, I accepted with the caution that it is not really my area of strength and that my knowledge on the processes was quite limited. I had hoped there would be more in the way of specific instructions on how to proceed. Absent that, I have tried to follow the example of others (e.g. for username changes). I realize that I have done extremely little in the way of bureaucrat tasks and if there are others that are more suited to the role, I would gladly give it up. Otherwise, is there anyone that could perhaps write up some instructions for the bureaucrat tasks? I've often felt this is an area lacking on the site: specific instructions for those less technically savvy, but who still wish to help wherever possible. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The technical aspects of how to grant user rights are very simple. (Click "user rights management" on any User Contributions page.) As you both rightly note, the problem lies in granting rights "subject to community consensus" when there is no discussion. Bot flag requests seldom receive much comment because bots normally do gnomish work that attracts little attention, and because bot operators are often interwiki workers with little or no prior activity here. I.e., nobody much cares and nobody knows them.

Aphaia, who seems to have handled most requests in recent years, appears to have taken the approach of granting unopposed requests if the user complies with policy and appears to be fairly experienced. It would be better if someone commented on the quality of their work, someone proficient in enough languages to review it, but who would that be? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I closed the requests where it appeared to me to be some input on the merits of the requests. I left a few open where there seems to be conflicting opinions. I then archived those I had closed. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, Ningauble, that has been what I've been doing exactly. I was sometimes much so bolder that I granted applicants whose experience was not established yet. The policy we installed requested operators to run their bot without flag as a test so that we could examine its edits. I am not sure if it works still but it was once a worked modus operandi in any way. As for language check (it matters when the bot works mainly for interlang links), they often seem to just trace existing interlang network, therefore there is no big difference of quality between each operators. While I could rely on my own linguistic knowledge, problematic operations were found very rare, and they could be easily detected without language skills: for example, misplacement of links (specially in case the links were placed in an unusual place like a subpage) or accidental removal and alike. Based on my experience and the current size of this project, I suggest a possibility we could be more relaxed to review bot requests. Thoughts? --Aphaia (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding language, it takes no proficiency to run a bot that traces existing links, but just because it's automatic doesn't mean it's right. The policy statement on being able to communicate in English is not about reading what you are linking, though that is a good thing, it is about being able to understand and respond when something goes wrong. A couple examples from my experience resolving bot problems may clarify the point:

Sometimes the incoming links are wrong, as happened when Déjà vu was disambiguated to Déjà Vu (2006 film).When a bot reverted removal of incorrect links it had added, I contacted the operator in English. He understood, replied in English, and fixed the incoming links.

Sometimes the automated script has bugs, as happened when Pywikipedia simultaneously had the same project in a table of projects to be linked and in a table of projects to be deleted, resulting in the "BotWars" incident with a high volume of bots reverting each other. I contacted multiple bot operators about the situation. One of them replied in ways that seemed non-responsive to the problem, and has subsequently indicated that he has little English.

It is true that these problems do not happen very often, but I think it is prudent for bot operators to be able to communicate effectively. Otherwise, when things do go wrong we could be in a position of "block first and ask questions later". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah I take your point. Minimum English competence for communication is sure required, and that is what our policy states already. As for permission for running the bot, I don't understand the policy demands, not as same as some other projects do. --Aphaia (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone technically wiser than I please figure out what happened to the WQ logo? I suspect it occurred when the old image was deleted, but I'm not sure how to fix it. The link is still there, but the image is blank. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not see this problem until you mentioned it and I refreshed the server cache. Undeleting File:Wiki.png appears to have fixed it. Is it working for you now? (I believe this is the default file name that Wikimedia software expects to use for the main logo on every wiki.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh that's annoying, are we sure this is a default thingy in the coding, and we can't use an image from Commons? -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I confirmed that this is the MediaWiki default before adding a warning to the file description page. It can be overridden with software settings but Wikimedia configurations use the default. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm reporting here that I've blocked AwSDFGSAWfrtg for vandalism, as it was vandalizing as high speed and I saw no sysop active for the last few hours. It is a clear throwaway account, but I'm reporting it here as I've had to disable the user's talk page and so that the admins can fully review my actions. I've also performed a mass deletion of the user's page creations. Regards, SnowolfHow can I help? 00:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is ever a lack of manpower for countervandalism, the project can request to be opted into the global sysop wikiset (meaning users with the global sysop userright can act as local sysop for countervandalism purposes, see m:Global sysop. Not suggesting it's appropriate or anything, just figured I'd let you guys know given you raised the issue :) Regards, SnowolfHow can I help? 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to, offhand. BD2412T 01:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of blocking with the same settings AwSDFGdSAWfrtg as it's clearly the same guy again, and deleting the talk pages he created. Please trout me if that is not okey. SnowolfHow can I help? 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Although we have not officially "opted in", stewards and global sysops have occasionally helped out since the number of regularly active admins declined here in the past couple years. Personally, I welcome these "emergency interventions", and I would not be opposed to opting in. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is what I've noticed. As far as I know those occasional emergency interventions cause no trouble, and apparently our manpower is declined comparing with past few years ago. Why not opt in it officially, of course with community consent? In my observation it wouldn't change anything, but just recognize and formalize the current situation. To opt in global-sysop set officially, we have to raise the issue on VP rather than here, but first I'd love to see if the current team is fine with such change or if there are issues we miss eventually but would like into consideration. --Aphaia (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that we don't have 24 hour admin coverage, I think opting in for GS is a good idea. Pmlineditor (t·c·l) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)